Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Who owns the code Claude Code wrote?

legallayer.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 570 posts

Re: Who owns the code Claude Code wrote?

#261

Post by cogman10 »

red75prime wrote: post #259
cogman10 wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Does it mean that shreds retain original copyright even if the content can't be restored? Yup, it absolutely does. In fact, that's why you are still violating copyright law by using bittorrent even though each of the users is only giving out a small slice or shred of the original content. The US has a granted defense in the case of something like shredding called "Fair Use" but that doesn't mean or imply that a cop…

> Yup, it absolutely does Well, it's not the first time when the law contradicts laws of nature (for the entertainment of the future generations). Bittorent is not a relevant example, because the system is designed to restore the work in its fullness. > in fact, pull out full NYT articles That's when they used their knowledge of the exact text they wanted to "retrieve" to get the text? It wouldn't be so efficient wit…

> Bittorent is not a relevant example, because the system is designed to restore the work in its fullness.

You can restore shredded documents with enough time and effort. And if you did that and started making photo copies, even if they are incomplete, you will run afoul of copyright law.

Bittorrent is a relevant example because it shows that shredding doesn't destroy copyright.

Remember, copyright is about the right to copy something. Simply shredding or destroying a thing isn't applicable to copyright. Nor is giving that thing away. What's applicable is when you start to actually copy the thing.

Re: Who owns the code Claude Code wrote?

#262

Post by RealityVoid »

atleastoptimal wrote: post #153
CWuestefeld wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but the ability for the agent to build it in the first place is based off of stolen IP. I honestly don't understand why the attitude that underlies this is so prevalent. When I write code, what I write and how I write it is informed by having read countless source code files over my education and my career. Just as I ingest all that experience to fine-tune how my later code is written, so does the LLM from the code i…

The attitude is derived from a general animus many have towards AI companies. They resent the efficacy of AI because it devalues individual expertise. I can't imagine it really justifiable to say that training off data is the same as "stealing", when that same claim, that learned information that a person could retain and reproduce constitutes copyright infringement is the subject of many dystopian narratives, like t…

This is the answer. People don't like having their livelihood threatened so they kick the thing that threatens it.

Re: Who owns the code Claude Code wrote?

#263

Post by RealityVoid »

gspr wrote: post #176
CWuestefeld wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but the ability for the agent to build it in the first place is based off of stolen IP. I honestly don't understand why the attitude that underlies this is so prevalent. When I write code, what I write and how I write it is informed by having read countless source code files over my education and my career. Just as I ingest all that experience to fine-tune how my later code is written, so does the LLM from the code i…

> When I write code, what I write and how I write it is informed by having read countless source code files over my education and my career. Just as I ingest all that experience to fine-tune how my later code is written, so does the LLM from the code it's seen. You are presumably human. We have granted humans specific exemptions in copyright law. We have not granted that to LLMs. Why are we so eager to?

Ok, so I use the LLM. I use the tool. Can I now apply the exemption to me?

Are you telling me that I can use the thing, but I can't use it if I process it through an LLM? It get slippery, fast.

Re: Who owns the code Claude Code wrote?

#264

Post by red75prime »

cogman10 wrote: post #261
red75prime wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yup, it absolutely does Well, it's not the first time when the law contradicts laws of nature (for the entertainment of the future generations). Bittorent is not a relevant example, because the system is designed to restore the work in its fullness. > in fact, pull out full NYT articles That's when they used their knowledge of the exact text they wanted to "retrieve" to get the text? It wouldn't be so efficient wit…

> Bittorent is not a relevant example, because the system is designed to restore the work in its fullness. You can restore shredded documents with enough time and effort. And if you did that and started making photo copies, even if they are incomplete, you will run afoul of copyright law. Bittorrent is a relevant example because it shows that shredding doesn't destroy copyright. Remember, copyright is about the right…

I've meant idealized shredding: a destructive transformation, which is still a machine transformation (think blender instead of shredder). When you need the exact knowledge of a thing to make its (imperfect) copy using some mechanism, it doesn't mean that the mechanism violates copyright.

EDIT: I don't say that neural networks can't rote learn extensive passages (it's an effect of data duplication). I'm saying that they are not designed to do that and it's possible to prevent that (as demonstrated by the latest models).

Re: Who owns the code Claude Code wrote?

#265

Post by RealityVoid »

gspr wrote: post #213
ako wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because that allows us to create useful tools that we didn't have before. For me it feels like a carpenter going from a hand-saw to an electrical saw. Still requires the skills of a good carpenter, but faster and easier.

… so a bunch of people just decided that rights we granted to humans also apply to their tools? Without any discussion? This isn't how anything is supposed to work when it comes to common rules!

The common rules are so because we agree on them. On principle, in this case, we do not agree what the rule should be here and it's in a way unprecedented. We'll soon converge to a societal agreement. I hope society abstaining itself from tools will not be the answer.

Re: Who owns the code Claude Code wrote?

#266

Post by freejazz »

reliablereason wrote: post #252
freejazz wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not if claude does the writing. MS doesn't write things for you, and if it did, you would not be entitled to a copyright in whatever it wrote for you.

Claude is not a legal entity, it is a software tool that outputs text based on statistics. There is a user that used a tool to create text and that user is the legal entity responsible for the text in any legal way that matters. Anything else would be completely ridiculous given current laws in most countries. It would be as ridiculous as blaming the car in a car accident where you drove over someone.

> Claude is not a legal entity

And?

>It would be as ridiculous as blaming the car in a car accident where you drove over someone.

No more ridiculous than you posting something you know nothing about.

Just because you don't get the copyright doesn't mean claude does. The fact that claude is not a legal entity has no bearing on whether or not you are entitled to a copyright for a work you did not create.

Re: Who owns the code Claude Code wrote?

#267

Post by pocksuppet »

ottah wrote: post #114

My opinion, copyright has mattered very little in the corporate world. Copyright is effectively meaningless with SaaS, and the compiled software ran on your machine is protected more by technical controls and EULAs. A world where copyright didn't exist for software would look nearly the same for the commercial world. Trade secrets, NDAs, and employment contracts bind workers more than copyright. The only thing that t…

Plus companies just violate GPL everywhere billions of times with impunity (see: every phone ever) and nothing happens to them.

Re: Who owns the code Claude Code wrote?

#268

Post by CWuestefeld »

blks wrote: post #218
CWuestefeld wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but the ability for the agent to build it in the first place is based off of stolen IP. I honestly don't understand why the attitude that underlies this is so prevalent. When I write code, what I write and how I write it is informed by having read countless source code files over my education and my career. Just as I ingest all that experience to fine-tune how my later code is written, so does the LLM from the code i…

You’re confusing yourself with a commercial product. You’re not a product that was created by other human beings based on someone else’s IP.

You’re not a product that was created by other human beings based on someone else’s IP.

It turns out that's false. We know that genes are patentable; remember back during the Human Genome Project, when there was such a rush to patent them? So genes are IP. (This seems bizarre to me, since they're patenting something that was found just sitting there, but this is what the system says right now.)

Well, two other humans (aka mom and dad) did create me, based on those patentable genes (and most likely including some genes that were, in fact, patented).

I'm not sure what to conclude from all of that, but I do think that it invalidates your argument.

Re: Who owns the code Claude Code wrote?

#269

Post by dang »

senaevren wrote: post #258
dang wrote: post #246

Could you please stop posting generated comments to HN? It's not allowed here, and it looks like you've done it over 30 times already. (Of course, there's no way to be certain of this, but it's what our software thinks, and the overall pattern is pretty convincing.) See https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html#generated and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47340079

You are definitely right to flag it, apologize for that. I used an AI assistant for the replies, and I will make sure not to use one going forward.

Appreciated!

Re: Who owns the code Claude Code wrote?

#270

Post by CWuestefeld »

mattmanser wrote: post #168
atleastoptimal wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The attitude is derived from a general animus many have towards AI companies. They resent the efficacy of AI because it devalues individual expertise. I can't imagine it really justifiable to say that training off data is the same as "stealing", when that same claim, that learned information that a person could retain and reproduce constitutes copyright infringement is the subject of many dystopian narratives, like t…

Part of how AI works is that it's just really complicated compression, you can get AI to write out Harry Potter novels word for word with the right prompting. When it picks out a rare bit of code, it will be simply copying that code, illegally, and presenting it without attribution or any licenses which is in fact breaking the law but AI companies are too important for the law to apply to them. There's been instances…

And now are spitting out big chunks of copyrighted code and presented it as somehow transformed even though all they've actually done is change a few variable names.

It's pretty likely that I've done the same thing. I mean, I've written enough CRUD functions in my life, for example, that in all likelihood I'm regurgitating stuff that's a copy, for all practical purposes, of stuff I've done before as work-for-hire for my employer. I'm not stealing intentionally or consciously, but it seems quite likely that it's happening. And that's probably true for many of you, at least that have been in the industry for a while.

Post reply on HN